Kay Schenk wrote:
On 12/01/2012 12:52 PM, Guy Waterval wrote:
Hi Rob,
Hi all,
2012/12/1 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Guy Waterval <waterval....@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Rob,
Hi all,
2012/11/30 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
[...]
That would be the point of a call for volunteers then, wouldn't it?
Bring in more volunteers with the skills needed to create an outline,
etc. There are independent books written on OpenOffice and certainly
Microsoft Office all the time. There are many people who have the
skills needed. All we need to do is ask.
The goal should be (IMHO) to reach a critical mass of volunteers where
the tasks are not only doable, but fun.
My personal opinion is that the way proposed by Ricardo, with an Apache
license, is actually the more innovative and realistic we have for an
online documentation at this time. His approach has the merit of
suggesting
a sustainable solution for the project and which can grow with it. So,
the
reflexion should be more oriented in finding a way to help him to
develop
his game, if desired..
The nature of things will lead to either:
1) We define the documentation plan, at least to the level of a list
of deliverables, a new d...@openoffice.apache.org mailing list, a
workflow, a technological approach (what formats and templates, etc.)
and a means of tracking status (page on the wiki) and *then* do a call
for volunteers. If we do this then new volunteers will naturally
adapt to the workflow and process that already is in-progress,
I think that a d...@openoffice.apache.org mailing list and the acceptation
of the Alv2.0 for the docs are absolutely necessary.
+1 from me on this also...
@Keith, I applaud the efforts you've undertaken.
Off and on for months, I've tried to find a public archive for the ODF
Authors list to see what's going on. Unfortunately, this search was in
vain.
Re your earlier comments about an "outline". Yes, we need this but I'm
not sure if you meant this literally. Don't we *have* and outline? I'm
confused. maybe you meant something else -- some templates?
So, again, we're back at licensing issues it would seem.
It is time to bring this under this project's umbrella it would seem.
Kay;
I believe the outline that Rob originally referred to and that I
responded to was an overall outline for what a documentation project
looked like. This is something we really do not have and I a not
qualified to do. It really needs an experienced documentation person. As
far as what I tried to do with the Getting Started Guide, there are
already chapters created that need to be reviewed and polished. So in
that sense that "outline" does exist.
As far as I know there is no public archive of the ODFAuthors list.
I am all for getting a documentation project running in house. In the
long run it makes more sense. All I attempted to do was to fill a
perceived need in the shortest tie period possible consistent with
quality goals.
Regards
Keith
#1 has my preference. It's not obligatory a totally fixed approach but it
allows to create a basis and to begin something. We have already
something
on the table and Ricardo and collegues are competent, certainly opened
and
motivated. Why not to try the way they have began. Nobody is excluded. It
allows to regroup all people who are interested in an apache
documentation
project and avoids to discourage others, who are investing their time and
energy aside the group, to find finally a home where they could really
get
support and express their qualities. Why not to build a winning team with
the people here in the group?
or
2) We do a call for volunteers with nothing more than a new
d...@openoffice.apache.org mailing list, and hash out the details on
that list with the new volunteers.
So if someone has strong views on how things should be done, then they
really need to step up and define #1. Otherwise, a recruitment
activity will lead to a larger group of documentation volunteers who
will have a mind of their own and could take this in other directions.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course.
@Rob --
I think defining #1 is a priority. I can't add much to this since I'm
actually pretty content with the online Help. I don't know who uses the
external documentation or what the expectations are.
#2 is a little the "big bang" method. Difficult to make a choice in this
case, only suggestions (probably one approach pro player), nothing
concrete
on the table. The risk is to stay blocked as it was the case up to now.
Another consideration: It is easier to find (and engage with)
volunteers who step into an ongoing activity like #1. But it is
easier to attract an alpha "documentation architect" if things are not
already defined.
It's the loto game. You have to find a Zorro who accepts to work as
volunteer (and freely). I don't think that you would have more chance
with
#2, which represents a big charge. Moreover, giving priority to this
method
could perhaps demotivate some members in this group.
Of course, these are not hard rules, but are considerations and
tendencies. There are no right answers. With QA we did a call for
volunteers that was more like #1. With marketing it is more like #2.
Translation is in the middle, with an existing workflow, but one that
is being improved by new volunteers,
In any case, I think that a new doc mailing list will be essential for
any approach, since new doc volunteers would be deterred by the
traffic on the dev list.
A new doc mailing list is absolutely necessary. It could offer an
alternative to the odf authors solution, as this group is the
documentation
area of LibreOffice. Even if people are totally correct there, we have to
be realistic, the conditions are not good there for people working on an
apache documentation project.
A+
